Hidden Hindus
Shandana Minhas September 27, 2000
#196 Posted by Umairr on October 2, 2000 7:51:05 pm
sighal235: #180: Are you basing your opinions on second-hand information (newspaper articles, discussions, etc.), or have you had a chance to spend a significant amount of time in Pakistan, observing the minorities in the Pakistani society?
On the whole, I think Pakistan treats its minorities about as badly as any other third world country. As far as the killing of minorities; Pakistan probably has the lowest level of minority killings by civilian majority groups, of any country in South Asia. As a religious group, the highest number of civilians currently being killed in South Asia are by far Muslims. The second highest number of civilians being killed in South Asia are Christians. The number of Hindus being killed are a distant third or fourth. This includes killings by the military, civlian hate groups, etc. And in the context of South Asia, an overwhelming majority of these Muslims and Christians, being killed, live in South Asian countries other than Pakistan.
This, of course, does not mean minorities are treated well in Pakistan. However, they are treated about as well as a total minority population of 3% is treated anywhere in the third world. Very poorly. Highlighting only Pakistan is a bit unfair.
The main problem in Pakistan is actually not the acceptance of minorities in the general society. The problem is that minorities have been sidelined in the legal system. Because of this, any member of the majority community can use biased laws to tackle their personal conflicts with someone belonging to a minority group. In fact, the blasphemy laws are usually used to settle land disputes and other similar issues (issues that have nothing to do with blasphemy). This is the major problem. Luckily, the courts have almost always, if not always, given, ``not guilty`` decisions in cases involving blasphemy law. The other problem is that the minorities in Pakistan are too small in number, and hence have very little clout. They are dependent on the goodwill of the majority. Had their percentage been larger, it would have been much difficult for biased majority political groups to get such laws passed.
However, the average Pakistani is in no way out to kill a minority citizen of Pakistan. This is a ridiculous idea that is being blown out of proportion on Chowk. Pakistan has fewer incidents of a majority, `` mob`` killing religious minorities than other countries in South Asia. In fact, most of the killings that occur in Pakistan are actually between the Shia-Sunni extremist groups,(which together constitute the overwhelming Pakistani religoius majority), mostly in Punjab, due to political and religious reasons. The other major killings are between members of two rival political groups in Karachi; both belonging to the same ethnic minority and both Muslims. Again due to political reasons. These combined killings perhaps outnumber the killings of religious minorities by 100 to 1 (or some significantly large number).
``Pakistanis will have a lot more standing about criticizing India`s treatment of minorities once Islamabad has seen a few non-Muslim presidents, a couple of Hindu Chief Justices, and half a dozen Parsi cricket captains.``
I don`t think a few minority members rising to the top is justification enough that a society has accepted minorities. Considering the fact that Pakistan has only a 3% minority, Pakistan has actually had quite a few distinguished govt. and military officials from the minority community. This does not mean the minorities are treated well. Pakistan has had a female Prime Minister. This does not mean women have all the rights they deserve in Pakistan. So, I do not agree with your criteria for judging the progress of minorities in a society.
Even within minority groups, there are different levels of acceptance in any society. Jews in the US are far more, ``equal`` than Muslims. In Pakistan, Parsis, as a group, are perhaps the most successful community in the whole country. On a per person level, far more successful than the Shia-Sunni majority. Ahmedis have the highest rate of education, I believe.
This is not an attempt to state that all is hunky-dory for minorities in Pakistan. Far from it. It is an attempt, to first point out, that people should live in a country for a significant amount of time first, before becoming experts on that country`s society. Secondly, it is to highlight that Pakistan lags behind other countries in terms of establishing a fair official legal system, under which minorities can live peacefully. The current legal system has been put in place due to the efforts of die-hard politicians, attempting to satisfy small but very vocal extremist groups. It is less due to the efforts of the average Pakistani on the street. As far as the average Pakistani`s treatment of religious minorities, it is as bad as the treatment of minorities in any third world country in which the religious minority constitute such a small percentage of the population. No better, no worse. Obviously a lot needs to be done to improve this situation.
Regarding Bhutto: I agree he didn`t do anything for the minorities; neither did his daughter. They were both too caught up in their personal agendas.
On the whole, I think Pakistan treats its minorities about as badly as any other third world country. As far as the killing of minorities; Pakistan probably has the lowest level of minority killings by civilian majority groups, of any country in South Asia. As a religious group, the highest number of civilians currently being killed in South Asia are by far Muslims. The second highest number of civilians being killed in South Asia are Christians. The number of Hindus being killed are a distant third or fourth. This includes killings by the military, civlian hate groups, etc. And in the context of South Asia, an overwhelming majority of these Muslims and Christians, being killed, live in South Asian countries other than Pakistan.
This, of course, does not mean minorities are treated well in Pakistan. However, they are treated about as well as a total minority population of 3% is treated anywhere in the third world. Very poorly. Highlighting only Pakistan is a bit unfair.
The main problem in Pakistan is actually not the acceptance of minorities in the general society. The problem is that minorities have been sidelined in the legal system. Because of this, any member of the majority community can use biased laws to tackle their personal conflicts with someone belonging to a minority group. In fact, the blasphemy laws are usually used to settle land disputes and other similar issues (issues that have nothing to do with blasphemy). This is the major problem. Luckily, the courts have almost always, if not always, given, ``not guilty`` decisions in cases involving blasphemy law. The other problem is that the minorities in Pakistan are too small in number, and hence have very little clout. They are dependent on the goodwill of the majority. Had their percentage been larger, it would have been much difficult for biased majority political groups to get such laws passed.
However, the average Pakistani is in no way out to kill a minority citizen of Pakistan. This is a ridiculous idea that is being blown out of proportion on Chowk. Pakistan has fewer incidents of a majority, `` mob`` killing religious minorities than other countries in South Asia. In fact, most of the killings that occur in Pakistan are actually between the Shia-Sunni extremist groups,(which together constitute the overwhelming Pakistani religoius majority), mostly in Punjab, due to political and religious reasons. The other major killings are between members of two rival political groups in Karachi; both belonging to the same ethnic minority and both Muslims. Again due to political reasons. These combined killings perhaps outnumber the killings of religious minorities by 100 to 1 (or some significantly large number).
``Pakistanis will have a lot more standing about criticizing India`s treatment of minorities once Islamabad has seen a few non-Muslim presidents, a couple of Hindu Chief Justices, and half a dozen Parsi cricket captains.``
I don`t think a few minority members rising to the top is justification enough that a society has accepted minorities. Considering the fact that Pakistan has only a 3% minority, Pakistan has actually had quite a few distinguished govt. and military officials from the minority community. This does not mean the minorities are treated well. Pakistan has had a female Prime Minister. This does not mean women have all the rights they deserve in Pakistan. So, I do not agree with your criteria for judging the progress of minorities in a society.
Even within minority groups, there are different levels of acceptance in any society. Jews in the US are far more, ``equal`` than Muslims. In Pakistan, Parsis, as a group, are perhaps the most successful community in the whole country. On a per person level, far more successful than the Shia-Sunni majority. Ahmedis have the highest rate of education, I believe.
This is not an attempt to state that all is hunky-dory for minorities in Pakistan. Far from it. It is an attempt, to first point out, that people should live in a country for a significant amount of time first, before becoming experts on that country`s society. Secondly, it is to highlight that Pakistan lags behind other countries in terms of establishing a fair official legal system, under which minorities can live peacefully. The current legal system has been put in place due to the efforts of die-hard politicians, attempting to satisfy small but very vocal extremist groups. It is less due to the efforts of the average Pakistani on the street. As far as the average Pakistani`s treatment of religious minorities, it is as bad as the treatment of minorities in any third world country in which the religious minority constitute such a small percentage of the population. No better, no worse. Obviously a lot needs to be done to improve this situation.
Regarding Bhutto: I agree he didn`t do anything for the minorities; neither did his daughter. They were both too caught up in their personal agendas.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#197 Posted by jay on October 2, 2000 7:51:05 pm
TALKING TO THE DEAD,
Cowasjee is alleged to be a top journalist of pakistan, there is no one listening to him, what ever he has to say is drowned in the din of jihad. He himself was arretsed or something during nawaz time, now the poor kafir is reduced to talking to the dead, dead Jinnah. What a pathetic situation.
Pakistan is going backwards, in a time warp, they types of YLH are stuck at 1947, they were cruising along nicely and there came the road block of one speach, Ok may be several utterences, which his followers never understood. Any how in the march of pakistan backwards, the jihadists are far ahead, they are almost at the promise land, the jihadists are in full cry, a coup by the bearded generals will finish off the echoes of the last speach.
As some one pointed out, Jinnah made the speach on iith august 1947, he died exactly a year later, on the anniversary of the speach. Let me consult Carl Jung on `sychronicty` and will get back to you.
Cowasjee is alleged to be a top journalist of pakistan, there is no one listening to him, what ever he has to say is drowned in the din of jihad. He himself was arretsed or something during nawaz time, now the poor kafir is reduced to talking to the dead, dead Jinnah. What a pathetic situation.
Pakistan is going backwards, in a time warp, they types of YLH are stuck at 1947, they were cruising along nicely and there came the road block of one speach, Ok may be several utterences, which his followers never understood. Any how in the march of pakistan backwards, the jihadists are far ahead, they are almost at the promise land, the jihadists are in full cry, a coup by the bearded generals will finish off the echoes of the last speach.
As some one pointed out, Jinnah made the speach on iith august 1947, he died exactly a year later, on the anniversary of the speach. Let me consult Carl Jung on `sychronicty` and will get back to you.
#198 Posted by jay on October 2, 2000 7:51:05 pm
ISLAM AND REFERMATION,
There are certain aspects of islam that prevents any kind of adaptation. The most important is fatwa, any one having a slight influence is killed off by those in power. The second is the command that no aspect of the book should be discarded. We have the problem with riba, interest rates. And the last is that there can be no more prophets.
Reformation looks very bleak and anything different from what is in saudi or taliban land will have to be enforced with an iron fist, ask the turks.
There are certain aspects of islam that prevents any kind of adaptation. The most important is fatwa, any one having a slight influence is killed off by those in power. The second is the command that no aspect of the book should be discarded. We have the problem with riba, interest rates. And the last is that there can be no more prophets.
Reformation looks very bleak and anything different from what is in saudi or taliban land will have to be enforced with an iron fist, ask the turks.
#199 Posted by jay on October 2, 2000 7:51:05 pm
know thy country,
To all those who ask the question, have you been to pakistan, to ylh and krashid,
Whither are we?
By Asma Jahangir
THE General, Chief Executive of Pakistan, arrived like an empty vessel at the United Nations Millennium Summit in New York. His noise made little sense to the international community, who yawned at his offer for peace and a no-war pact to India.
A leader, who claims he has little control over militants in his country and ``spiritually`` supports the strategy of ``jihad``, is not likely to be taken seriously, especially as he does not officially head the ``jihadis``, who are central to the tensions between the two countries - India and Pakistan.
Our Chief Executive sounded more like a deposed Maharaja of Kashmir, rather than an interim military ruler of Pakistan, who had vowed to restore ``pure and true`` democracy to the country - a promise made by every man on horseback.
The government`s commitment to raise the issue of violations of human rights in Indian held Kashmir is laudable. They must continue to do so, but in a sincere and coherent manner. A government which has banned political activities and refuses to hold general elections in its own country can hardly be expected to champion the cause of human rights of the people of Kashmir. To give weight to his concerns regarding the situation of human rights in Kashmir, the Chief Executive would be best advised to improve the record of human rights domestically too.
Is he concerned about the two hundred and thirtythree suicides committed in the last seven months because of economic desperation? Did he wince at the story of eve-teasing of women at Al-hamra, where young men stroked the terrified women like vultures? What did he do for the pregnant woman who was killed and her stomach slashed by a dare-devil male relative in the name of honour? Does he get disturbed at the rising misuse of the blasphemy law?
A Hindu income tax inspector gets lynched in the presence of the army personnel for allegedly having made a remark on the beard of a trader. Promptly, the unfortunate Hindu government servant is booked for having committed blasphemy, while the traders and the Lashkar-e-Tayaba activists were offered tea over parleys. A seventy-year-old Mukhtaran Bibi and her pregnant daughter Samina are languishing in Sheikhupura jail on trumpeted-up charges of blasphemy.
Pakistan ranks as one of the front-runners in imposing death penalty - over 4,00 prisoners are on the death row. Children, as young as twelve years old, are in jails. One such child has been awarded death penalty. Insecurity is acute and pervasive and militancy has turned into barbarism. It has left a chilling effect on our society. Every able-bodied person is making plans to opt out and leave his motherland. People of Northern Areas have no rights. They do not even have the right to vote. They are without a High Court or elected representatives.
Elections are regularly rigged in Azad Kashmir and the people denied basic rights. All this is glossed over in the name of security. Every decent person, Pakistani or otherwise, feels disturbed by consistent violations of human rights in Kashmir. Similarly, they are equally concerned at the oppression in Afghanistan. If human rights are central to our foreign policy, then the government of Pakistan ought, at least, to cold-shoulder its Taliban friends.
The hypocrisy of our foreign policy is apparent to everyone, except our military leaders and their civilian sychophants. The Indian security forces should and must, at all costs, be brought to justice for rape and extra-judicial killings in Kashmir. At the same time, so should those in Pakistan who killed and raped their own citizens in East Pakistan. We cannot exonerate either.
Solving the Kashmir problem is not easy. It is complex and best left to political leaders. No interim government, without a public mandate, can hope to do much about it. It may well complicate matters. Recent bombings at Lahore should be some warning.
Pakistan`s insistence on plebiscite is not supported by many Kashmiri groups. They want independence, rather than a choice between the devil and the deep sea. No one will buy plebiscite, perhaps not even the people of Azad Kashmir.
If independence is the next best choice, then Pakistan`s leadership has to be prepared to let go of Azad Kashmir and perhaps the Northern Areas too. Many hope that an independent Kashmir will remain under our control. Perhaps so, but only if we are able to offer them prosperity and well-being, which we seem to lose fast enough in our dreams of grand alliances and strategic depths. More optimistic analysts insists that Pakistan is on the verge of getting the Valley. Any such move in the presence of militants and Indian security forces will only end in bloodshed and a constant proxy war.
The only route to solving the Kashmir issue is through a series of negotiations - but they cannot start until violence decreases in Kashmir. The recent cease-fire was a positive development but short-lived. Whether it is a sustainable cease-fire or a series of talks, they can only be negotiated by a civilian elected government. The military rulers, as we have witnessed, have lost credibility both at home and abroad. The message from the UN Summit was clear: ``get off your high horse and be relevant.`` Let us hope it has sunk somewhere.
///All apkistanis on the chowk who talk of moderation in pakistan should frame the above post, read it every morning.
To all those who ask the question, have you been to pakistan, to ylh and krashid,
Whither are we?
By Asma Jahangir
THE General, Chief Executive of Pakistan, arrived like an empty vessel at the United Nations Millennium Summit in New York. His noise made little sense to the international community, who yawned at his offer for peace and a no-war pact to India.
A leader, who claims he has little control over militants in his country and ``spiritually`` supports the strategy of ``jihad``, is not likely to be taken seriously, especially as he does not officially head the ``jihadis``, who are central to the tensions between the two countries - India and Pakistan.
Our Chief Executive sounded more like a deposed Maharaja of Kashmir, rather than an interim military ruler of Pakistan, who had vowed to restore ``pure and true`` democracy to the country - a promise made by every man on horseback.
The government`s commitment to raise the issue of violations of human rights in Indian held Kashmir is laudable. They must continue to do so, but in a sincere and coherent manner. A government which has banned political activities and refuses to hold general elections in its own country can hardly be expected to champion the cause of human rights of the people of Kashmir. To give weight to his concerns regarding the situation of human rights in Kashmir, the Chief Executive would be best advised to improve the record of human rights domestically too.
Is he concerned about the two hundred and thirtythree suicides committed in the last seven months because of economic desperation? Did he wince at the story of eve-teasing of women at Al-hamra, where young men stroked the terrified women like vultures? What did he do for the pregnant woman who was killed and her stomach slashed by a dare-devil male relative in the name of honour? Does he get disturbed at the rising misuse of the blasphemy law?
A Hindu income tax inspector gets lynched in the presence of the army personnel for allegedly having made a remark on the beard of a trader. Promptly, the unfortunate Hindu government servant is booked for having committed blasphemy, while the traders and the Lashkar-e-Tayaba activists were offered tea over parleys. A seventy-year-old Mukhtaran Bibi and her pregnant daughter Samina are languishing in Sheikhupura jail on trumpeted-up charges of blasphemy.
Pakistan ranks as one of the front-runners in imposing death penalty - over 4,00 prisoners are on the death row. Children, as young as twelve years old, are in jails. One such child has been awarded death penalty. Insecurity is acute and pervasive and militancy has turned into barbarism. It has left a chilling effect on our society. Every able-bodied person is making plans to opt out and leave his motherland. People of Northern Areas have no rights. They do not even have the right to vote. They are without a High Court or elected representatives.
Elections are regularly rigged in Azad Kashmir and the people denied basic rights. All this is glossed over in the name of security. Every decent person, Pakistani or otherwise, feels disturbed by consistent violations of human rights in Kashmir. Similarly, they are equally concerned at the oppression in Afghanistan. If human rights are central to our foreign policy, then the government of Pakistan ought, at least, to cold-shoulder its Taliban friends.
The hypocrisy of our foreign policy is apparent to everyone, except our military leaders and their civilian sychophants. The Indian security forces should and must, at all costs, be brought to justice for rape and extra-judicial killings in Kashmir. At the same time, so should those in Pakistan who killed and raped their own citizens in East Pakistan. We cannot exonerate either.
Solving the Kashmir problem is not easy. It is complex and best left to political leaders. No interim government, without a public mandate, can hope to do much about it. It may well complicate matters. Recent bombings at Lahore should be some warning.
Pakistan`s insistence on plebiscite is not supported by many Kashmiri groups. They want independence, rather than a choice between the devil and the deep sea. No one will buy plebiscite, perhaps not even the people of Azad Kashmir.
If independence is the next best choice, then Pakistan`s leadership has to be prepared to let go of Azad Kashmir and perhaps the Northern Areas too. Many hope that an independent Kashmir will remain under our control. Perhaps so, but only if we are able to offer them prosperity and well-being, which we seem to lose fast enough in our dreams of grand alliances and strategic depths. More optimistic analysts insists that Pakistan is on the verge of getting the Valley. Any such move in the presence of militants and Indian security forces will only end in bloodshed and a constant proxy war.
The only route to solving the Kashmir issue is through a series of negotiations - but they cannot start until violence decreases in Kashmir. The recent cease-fire was a positive development but short-lived. Whether it is a sustainable cease-fire or a series of talks, they can only be negotiated by a civilian elected government. The military rulers, as we have witnessed, have lost credibility both at home and abroad. The message from the UN Summit was clear: ``get off your high horse and be relevant.`` Let us hope it has sunk somewhere.
///All apkistanis on the chowk who talk of moderation in pakistan should frame the above post, read it every morning.
#200 Posted by pragmatix on October 2, 2000 7:51:05 pm
krashid 109
``Don`t worry pragmatix!
You will forget Kashmir expressway, when All India Expressway will takes its place.``
KRashid, The All India Expressway leads to the NASDAQ care to join in? Better than the expressway to the IMF and WB.
Religion is better kept at home and in temples, mosques, gurudwaras, churches and synagogues! And by the way....not sure if the terrorists have gone to heaven...GOD is wiser than that!
#201 Posted by shankar on October 2, 2000 7:51:05 pm
Bilal/dost mittar,
The stories that you relate are from a generation or 2 above us. Does this apply to our contemporary times?
When I lived in Bombay, one of the most popular resturants was Delhi Durbar, owned by muslims.
As far as I`m concerned, muslim cusine is the finest in the world.
The stories that you relate are from a generation or 2 above us. Does this apply to our contemporary times?
When I lived in Bombay, one of the most popular resturants was Delhi Durbar, owned by muslims.
As far as I`m concerned, muslim cusine is the finest in the world.
#202 Posted by devkant on October 2, 2000 7:51:05 pm
krashid...reply #182
``So you can see labelling and projection moves one away from reaching at the correct picture.``
i don`t think u could have said it better. i believe that our local newspapers and news channels have to share the blame for presenting a distorted picture of the facts and not to mention our home grown prejudices that are fed into us.
about vajpayee....the current era of indian politics is that of coalitions and i don`t see any party getting a single largest majority. at least vajpayee is better than indira gandhi and nehru who despite being good diplomats, were absolute disasters when it came to the economic development of india.
ylh....
i wouldn`t say that i am entirely happy with your reasoning....but since i`m back in poona, i have a lot of assignments to finish of and hence we`ll continue this discussion if u wish some other time.
``So you can see labelling and projection moves one away from reaching at the correct picture.``
i don`t think u could have said it better. i believe that our local newspapers and news channels have to share the blame for presenting a distorted picture of the facts and not to mention our home grown prejudices that are fed into us.
about vajpayee....the current era of indian politics is that of coalitions and i don`t see any party getting a single largest majority. at least vajpayee is better than indira gandhi and nehru who despite being good diplomats, were absolute disasters when it came to the economic development of india.
ylh....
i wouldn`t say that i am entirely happy with your reasoning....but since i`m back in poona, i have a lot of assignments to finish of and hence we`ll continue this discussion if u wish some other time.
#203 Posted by satyavadi on October 2, 2000 7:51:05 pm
sigalph #180:
Its good to see a committed Jinnahite and a fervent supporter of the Muslim League and Parition, stand up for Indian secularism.
Kudos to you, Sir.
Thank you.
Satyavadi
PS: YLH and Maulana Krashid, would you try to read Sigalph`s post?
Its good to see a committed Jinnahite and a fervent supporter of the Muslim League and Parition, stand up for Indian secularism.
Kudos to you, Sir.
Thank you.
Satyavadi
PS: YLH and Maulana Krashid, would you try to read Sigalph`s post?
#204 Posted by Rdesikan on October 2, 2000 7:51:05 pm
Re Fuzair
There is nothing inherently wrong in religion. The problem lies in its interpretation. While I do not know much about the 3 religions of the book, the Hinduism I grew up on was tolerant. But at the same time, you also have nuts who believe that religion tells them that their belief is the correct interpretation of Hinduism. Go figure.
The problem is with the interlopers of religion. If Christ were alive today, he wouldn`t recognize what passes off for the R.C. version a la Rome or the Southern baptist version as well. I suppose that the same would apply to the Buddha, Mohammad or any other founder/prophet of a religion.
As Shakespeare put it so eloquently in the Merchant of Venice to the effect: even the devil can cite the scriptures to make his cause.
There is nothing inherently wrong in religion. The problem lies in its interpretation. While I do not know much about the 3 religions of the book, the Hinduism I grew up on was tolerant. But at the same time, you also have nuts who believe that religion tells them that their belief is the correct interpretation of Hinduism. Go figure.
The problem is with the interlopers of religion. If Christ were alive today, he wouldn`t recognize what passes off for the R.C. version a la Rome or the Southern baptist version as well. I suppose that the same would apply to the Buddha, Mohammad or any other founder/prophet of a religion.
As Shakespeare put it so eloquently in the Merchant of Venice to the effect: even the devil can cite the scriptures to make his cause.
#205 Posted by ylh on October 2, 2000 7:51:05 pm
Urstruly
I believe both those posts are by
Ardeshir Cowasjee... I dont know what is so contradictory to you.
Please sir, I have meaning to ask you, what do you have against Minorities anyway? Is it Islamic of you to hate them?
I believe that I have read them quite thoroughly.
Ardeshir Cowasjee, with whom I have sincere difference on Bhutto, is a real patriot ... a patriot of Higher substance than any half baked imams and maulanas leading the JI can ever be.
Pakistan Zindabad
Ardeshir Cowasjee the parsi for
President!!!!!!!!!!
I believe both those posts are by
Ardeshir Cowasjee... I dont know what is so contradictory to you.
Please sir, I have meaning to ask you, what do you have against Minorities anyway? Is it Islamic of you to hate them?
I believe that I have read them quite thoroughly.
Ardeshir Cowasjee, with whom I have sincere difference on Bhutto, is a real patriot ... a patriot of Higher substance than any half baked imams and maulanas leading the JI can ever be.
Pakistan Zindabad
Ardeshir Cowasjee the parsi for
President!!!!!!!!!!
#206 Posted by ylh on October 2, 2000 7:51:05 pm
Urstruly
Please sir comment on how the two posts are contradictory.
Thankyou
Yasser Hamdani
Please sir comment on how the two posts are contradictory.
Thankyou
Yasser Hamdani
#207 Posted by Kant_Patel on October 2, 2000 7:51:05 pm
Urstruly #191 re YLH,
How true! Now read his post #143 and then #144.
some contradictions, nay!
Kant....
How true! Now read his post #143 and then #144.
some contradictions, nay!
Kant....
#208 Posted by ad on October 2, 2000 7:51:05 pm
EST Reply #: 192
Fuzair
You wrote:
``
All three of the revealed religions are inherently intolerant. I don`t know as much about Hinduism, etc. so I will exclude them from my sweeping condemnation
``
--Another problem I see with all the revealed religons (except Judaism ?) is their intense desire to preach and propogate their version of the ``Truth``.
That is one thing that has always been the cause of all wars based on religon. If converting people was the not aim of these religons, then followers would not try to convince /impose their views of others.
Just a thought...
AD
Fuzair
You wrote:
``
All three of the revealed religions are inherently intolerant. I don`t know as much about Hinduism, etc. so I will exclude them from my sweeping condemnation
``
--Another problem I see with all the revealed religons (except Judaism ?) is their intense desire to preach and propogate their version of the ``Truth``.
That is one thing that has always been the cause of all wars based on religon. If converting people was the not aim of these religons, then followers would not try to convince /impose their views of others.
Just a thought...
AD
#209 Posted by ad on October 2, 2000 7:51:05 pm
EST Reply #: 192
Fuzair
You wrote:
``
All three of the revealed religions are inherently intolerant. I don`t know as much about Hinduism, etc. so I will exclude them from my sweeping condemnation
``
--Another problem I see with all the revealed religons (except Judaism ?) is their intense desire to preach and propogate their version of the ``Truth``.
That is one thing that has always been the cause of all wars based on religon. If converting people was the not aim of these religons, then followers would not try to convince /impose their views of others. And this would prevent people taking arms to convince/impose thier ideas or to defend their way of life.
Just a thought...
AD
Fuzair
You wrote:
``
All three of the revealed religions are inherently intolerant. I don`t know as much about Hinduism, etc. so I will exclude them from my sweeping condemnation
``
--Another problem I see with all the revealed religons (except Judaism ?) is their intense desire to preach and propogate their version of the ``Truth``.
That is one thing that has always been the cause of all wars based on religon. If converting people was the not aim of these religons, then followers would not try to convince /impose their views of others. And this would prevent people taking arms to convince/impose thier ideas or to defend their way of life.
Just a thought...
AD
#210 Posted by sb on October 2, 2000 7:51:05 pm
Urstruly #190: One must also understand that when there is a fact vs. beleif argument, the beleif always ``wins``- even if the beleif is a non-religious one.
Please elucidate.
Fuzair #192: For those of you who don`t know what I`m talking about, forget it. It will take too long to explain.
:-) You are a bit optimistic.
fairdinkum #195:
Problems arise because people defeat the reason for the existence of a religion - because they ignore that the religion (any religion) exists because people at the time of its birth exercised their brains (and questioned existing customs)
Please elucidate.
Fuzair #192: For those of you who don`t know what I`m talking about, forget it. It will take too long to explain.
:-) You are a bit optimistic.
fairdinkum #195:
Problems arise because people defeat the reason for the existence of a religion - because they ignore that the religion (any religion) exists because people at the time of its birth exercised their brains (and questioned existing customs)
#211 Posted by Umairr on October 2, 2000 7:51:05 pm
Fuzair: #192: I agree with the second part of your post.
I don`t think Islam is inherently intolerant or tolerant. I think it is way too abstract, and open to interpretation to be considered one or the other. In another words, its level of tolerance is in the eye of the interpreter. Two people can read the same verse of the Quran, and abstract completely different meanings from it. An example is in the translations that I quoted in my reply to hamidm. This to me is the beauty of the Quran.
The problem arises when people are convinced their interpretations are the only correct ones. You have highlighted this point quite convincingly. I have met very few, if any, Muslims who do not believe that the Quran is not God`s word. I have met a whole bunch that thinks it is not being interpreted correctly. That is why I stated that there are as many interpretations of the Quran, as there are human beings. Each person who reads it will interpret it based on his or her own social system, education level, and upbringing.
I think Islam, due to its sophistication and wide spectrum of influence over a person`s everyday life, requires a very educated society to be interpreted in an enlightened. Hence the emphasis on education in Islam. In an educated society, Islam will flourish. In an uneducated society, Islam may become a source of conflict. Currently Muslims are by far the most illiterate religious group in the world. As an international community, they are far more illiterate than Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Parsis, Athiests, etc. etc. Because of this, they will always lean towards the, ``unenlightened`` interpretation of the Quran.
To the best of my knowledge, it is only in the 20th century that some countries have been able to achieve universal education. None of these countries are Muslim countries. Due to this, there has never been a Muslim society, which has achieved universal education. So once the initial group of the original Islamic leaders passed away, the interpretation of the Quran was up for grabs. Whomever had the most influence or the will to die for his/her cause ended up getting his/her ideas declared official. This is the situation we currently find ourselves in. I think it is a bit unfair to blame religion for this.
I think it also somewhat unfair to put all the blame on the mullahs. They genuinely believe they are interpreting Islam correctly. They are willing to put their lives on the line for it. If the, ``enlightened`` interpreters were to show the same amount of conviction for their interpretations, the Muslim society would be a better place. I think that is where the problem lies.
Islam, unlike Christianity, does not divide religious and state leadership amongst two different groups. The leader of the state is supposed to be the religious leader, as well. Or vice-versa. Muhammad was not a priest. He was a statesman, politician, general, etc. The Caliphs were brilliant statesman. Usman was a very successful businessman. Khalid-bin-Waleed (a colleague of Muhammad and the Caliphs) was a world class general. Umar was a great executive manager, etc. etc. Non-Muslim historians recognize these facts, also.
These leaders, along with their human faults and virtues, had a deep understanding of religion also. So they were professionals who understood and participated in religion. Not religious leaders who participated in professions. This is what is lacking in the current Islamic societies. There is a large vacuum of professionals who understand religion. If one were to extrapolate backwards towards the initial Islamic leaders, what would the ideal profile for the current Islamic leader? Would it be someone who is a religious scholar but has no professional experience. Or would it be a successful businessman (perhaps a .com entrepreneur) like Usman, who happens to have an in-depth understanding of religion. I think Islam (or at least, early Islamic history) dictates the later, and not the former.
The problem is that there are very few of the later breed around. The professionals do not have enough religious knowledge, or conviction. This has created a religious vacuum, which has been filled by the uneducated mullah, who is willing to put in a lot more effort to get his interpretation (incorrect, though it maybe) of religion declared the final word.
I think the enlightened interpretation of Islam will become the norm, not when the mullah becomes educated, nor will it occur if the mullah is shipped out to sea. The enlightenment will occur if the professional and, ``worldly enlightened`` Muslim (who always complains about the mullah) starts become a religious scholar also, and develops enough courage, knowledge and discipline to take on the mullah, in the mullah`s own backyard.
I don`t think Islam is inherently intolerant or tolerant. I think it is way too abstract, and open to interpretation to be considered one or the other. In another words, its level of tolerance is in the eye of the interpreter. Two people can read the same verse of the Quran, and abstract completely different meanings from it. An example is in the translations that I quoted in my reply to hamidm. This to me is the beauty of the Quran.
The problem arises when people are convinced their interpretations are the only correct ones. You have highlighted this point quite convincingly. I have met very few, if any, Muslims who do not believe that the Quran is not God`s word. I have met a whole bunch that thinks it is not being interpreted correctly. That is why I stated that there are as many interpretations of the Quran, as there are human beings. Each person who reads it will interpret it based on his or her own social system, education level, and upbringing.
I think Islam, due to its sophistication and wide spectrum of influence over a person`s everyday life, requires a very educated society to be interpreted in an enlightened. Hence the emphasis on education in Islam. In an educated society, Islam will flourish. In an uneducated society, Islam may become a source of conflict. Currently Muslims are by far the most illiterate religious group in the world. As an international community, they are far more illiterate than Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Parsis, Athiests, etc. etc. Because of this, they will always lean towards the, ``unenlightened`` interpretation of the Quran.
To the best of my knowledge, it is only in the 20th century that some countries have been able to achieve universal education. None of these countries are Muslim countries. Due to this, there has never been a Muslim society, which has achieved universal education. So once the initial group of the original Islamic leaders passed away, the interpretation of the Quran was up for grabs. Whomever had the most influence or the will to die for his/her cause ended up getting his/her ideas declared official. This is the situation we currently find ourselves in. I think it is a bit unfair to blame religion for this.
I think it also somewhat unfair to put all the blame on the mullahs. They genuinely believe they are interpreting Islam correctly. They are willing to put their lives on the line for it. If the, ``enlightened`` interpreters were to show the same amount of conviction for their interpretations, the Muslim society would be a better place. I think that is where the problem lies.
Islam, unlike Christianity, does not divide religious and state leadership amongst two different groups. The leader of the state is supposed to be the religious leader, as well. Or vice-versa. Muhammad was not a priest. He was a statesman, politician, general, etc. The Caliphs were brilliant statesman. Usman was a very successful businessman. Khalid-bin-Waleed (a colleague of Muhammad and the Caliphs) was a world class general. Umar was a great executive manager, etc. etc. Non-Muslim historians recognize these facts, also.
These leaders, along with their human faults and virtues, had a deep understanding of religion also. So they were professionals who understood and participated in religion. Not religious leaders who participated in professions. This is what is lacking in the current Islamic societies. There is a large vacuum of professionals who understand religion. If one were to extrapolate backwards towards the initial Islamic leaders, what would the ideal profile for the current Islamic leader? Would it be someone who is a religious scholar but has no professional experience. Or would it be a successful businessman (perhaps a .com entrepreneur) like Usman, who happens to have an in-depth understanding of religion. I think Islam (or at least, early Islamic history) dictates the later, and not the former.
The problem is that there are very few of the later breed around. The professionals do not have enough religious knowledge, or conviction. This has created a religious vacuum, which has been filled by the uneducated mullah, who is willing to put in a lot more effort to get his interpretation (incorrect, though it maybe) of religion declared the final word.
I think the enlightened interpretation of Islam will become the norm, not when the mullah becomes educated, nor will it occur if the mullah is shipped out to sea. The enlightenment will occur if the professional and, ``worldly enlightened`` Muslim (who always complains about the mullah) starts become a religious scholar also, and develops enough courage, knowledge and discipline to take on the mullah, in the mullah`s own backyard.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- Goldfinger: harish_hyd, also this: www.rediff.com/news/2008/nov/nov28mumterror-rescue-efforts-badly-planne d-says-israel.htm?zcc=rl India's... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- rf786: Re: # 61 Like I... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- shoaib_daniyal: “We in Pakistan understand... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- tahmed32: harish #77 we could... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- om_prakash: Live TV broadcasts did... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- Goldfinger: Re: # 57 harish_hyd...please... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- harish_hyd: #74 by tahmed32 first, it... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- BJ2: Beena, A cool-headed piece, like... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
